[BartSimpson]

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2012/ ... pes/67649/

Of particular interest in this article is the chart that compares the ever-changing IPCC 'official' prognostications of temperature doom...all made whilst simultaneously screaming to the heavens that 'the debate is over, the science is in!' - yet the IPCC kept rewriting their 'science' on a near-constant basis.

Quote:

“From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.”

This came up at my office this morning and it was odd that here it is a health care related agency and the passions in favor of AGW theory were so...adamant. It was a pro-AGW staffer who brought up this article and then went on to inform us of how the poor polar bears in Canada are nearly extinct because of global warming and that the damned Canadians were causing it with their oil sands and that damned pipeline.

Nevermind that the Keystone pipeline hasn't even been built. Can't let a fact get in the way of a good tantrum, can we?

I pointed out that the polar bear population is actually doing just fine and that they are far from extinct except in the minds of those who'd kill the bears themselves if it would further their agenda.

Natch, that started a round of shrill name calling in which I was informed that I hate nature, children, and minorities because nature, children, and minorities will be impacted more by global warming than adult white people.

Yep, global warming is somehow racist and white people are magically immune to it.

Right.

Oh, well. Thought I'd share one of the highlights of my day.

[Brenda]

"official prognosis"

[DanSC]

Good thing you can still legally hunt polar bears then.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson wrote:

I pointed out that the polar bear population is actually doing just fine and that they are far from extinct except in the minds of those who'd kill the bears themselves if it would further their agenda.

Natch, that started a round of shrill name calling in which I was informed that I hate nature, children, and minorities because nature, children, and minorities will be impacted more by global warming than adult white people.

Sheesh, what the hell kind of a place are you working at anyway? Is it a university faculty office?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

I pointed out that the polar bear population is actually doing just fine and that they are far from extinct except in the minds of those who'd kill the bears themselves if it would further their agenda.

Natch, that started a round of shrill name calling in which I was informed that I hate nature, children, and minorities because nature, children, and minorities will be impacted more by global warming than adult white people.

Sheesh, what the hell kind of a place are you working at anyway? Is it a university faculty office?

It's a state agency.

That means on December 25th the legal holiday we observe is Christmas but if you call it Christmas you'll be subject to counseling for being insensitive to those who are not Christian (but who have no problem taking the day off with pay).

It also means we're supposed to tolerate all sorts of politically correct nonsense amd AGW is just the latest flavor of it.

[sandorski]

On the ropes again eh?

No. Keep living the dream though.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

On the ropes again eh?

No. Keep living the dream though.

The truth is winning the day. As one of the guys from UAE said:

Phil Jones wrote:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The temperatures just are not doing what you want them to do and, thus, you have to gin up the numbers and now people are onto you.

That's why Kyoto Treaty 2 was signed by...not one country.

[Curtman]

I wonder if Bart works for The Heartland Institute..

Breaking news: Heartland leaker is scientist Peter Gleick, says documents are all real

Quote:

The news about Heartland Institute just took a decidedly odd turn. Recently, internal documents leaked from the far-right group revealed their antiscience agenda, including their funding strategy, donor list, and most startlingly a paper outlining their strategy to "dissuade teachers from teaching science".
When these documents were posted, Heartland started threatening the sites hosting them, as well as bloggers who wrote about them including a 71-year-old veteran). This part is very important: Heartland has made repeated claims that the strategy paper is a fake.
Now, the leaker has outed himself: Peter Gleick, a research scientist with the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, which among other things investigates the impact of hydrology on human health and how climate change plays into it.
In his admission, Gleick says he initially received the Institute’s internal documents in the mail anonymously. Given their potential impact, he tried to confirm their reality. How he did so, though, is something of an issue:
In an effort to [confirm the accuracy of the documents], and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.
...

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

On the ropes again eh?

No. Keep living the dream though.

The truth is winning the day. As one of the guys from UAE said:

Phil Jones wrote:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The temperatures just are not doing what you want them to do and, thus, you have to gin up the numbers and now people are onto you.

That's why Kyoto Treaty 2 was signed by...not one country.

[BartSimpson]

Curtman wrote:

I wonder if Bart works for The Heartland Institute..

No, and I don't know of this chicanery or the organization. All of that is irrelevant to me because the most damning things I've ever come across about AGW come from the proponents of AGW.

Nothing beats whacking people on their heads with their own words.

Here's one of the most damaging of email excerpts and if you'd like the full files in .pdf I'd be happy to email them to you.

Quote:

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

A couple conclusions I can draw from this exchange between two of the world's foremost AGW proponents:

1. There is no warming.

2. If the 'observing system is inadequate' because it does not support warming then how was it ever adequate enough to present the theory in the first place?

3. The 'consensus' of these two scientists, in private, is 180 degrees different from what they present in public. Ergo, they are lying in public and they know it.


Really, it is the emails from UAE that are the most damning because the very architects of the so-called 'consensus' are shown to be lying and committing a vast fraud. If there really were a warming problem then they would not need to fudge the numbers, would they?

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

That's all you got?

Fail.

Like I said, your side of this is losing the argument because since the predictions of gloom and doom are not taking place as you wanted them to no one is paying you any attention.

Sea level is not rising. The brass benchmark for high tide on the granite dock in Salem, Massachussetts reads the same today as it did in 1647 when the dock was emplaced. The Maldive Islands have not disappeared as was predicted in 1992. Tonga is still there. So is Kiribati. Simply, not one island has disappeared due to sea level rise.

People in Europe are freezing to death.

The glaciers in the Himalaya are, sadly for you, growing.

The ice mass of the Antarctic is growing.

And etc.

But you keep at it. Click your ruby red heels together a few times and...it still won't be getting calamitously warmer.

Finally, what really galls me, is how disappointed some of the people are on your side of this because none of their doomsday scenarios have come to pass.

Quote:

Millions of people haven't died from global warming. Darn.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

That's all you got?

Fail.

Like I said, your side of this is losing the argument because since the predictions of gloom and doom are not taking place as you wanted them to no one is paying you any attention.

Sea level is not rising. The brass benchmark for high tide on the granite dock in Salem, Massachussetts reads the same today as it did in 1647 when the dock was emplaced. The Maldive Islands have not disappeared as was predicted in 1992. Tonga is still there. So is Kiribati. Simply, not one island has disappeared due to sea level rise.

People in Europe are freezing to death.

The glaciers in the Himalaya are, sadly for you, growing.

The ice mass of the Antarctic is growing.

And etc.

But you keep at it. Click your ruby red heels together a few times and...it still won't be getting calamitously warmer.

Finally, what really galls me, is how disappointed some of the people are on your side of this because none of their doomsday scenarios have come to pass.

Quote:

Millions of people haven't died from global warming. Darn.

There you go again. In all these years, in all these threads, have you ever been correct even once?

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

There you go again. In all these years, in all these threads, have you ever been correct even once?

Yes. I'm not proposing devastating hurricanes to hit the USA in increasing intensity in every successive year after 2005. In fact there has not been even one hurricane to make landfall in the US in all that time. At the same time the IPCC had predicted an increase in cyclones making landfall in Australia and, instead, cyclones hitting Australia have declined by 60% in that time frame.

I didn't say that it would be so warm that it would stop snowing in the British Isles by 2010.

I didn't say that CO2 increases would correspond with temperature increases.

I didn't say that Antarctica would warm causing catastrophic flooding around the world by 2010.

I didn't predict a massive AGW-induced drought for Australia in 2011.

I never said that global warming causes the spread of disease.

So all I've done is question the assumptions and the alarmism while it's your friends who have the uneviable job of defending their assertions. Their repeated failures to have reality conform to their projections would lend gravitas to my questions of their assertions.

In sum, I'm right in saying that the predictions of gloom and doom are, charitably, overstated.

And I won't call your argument wrong, per se, since it merely consists of

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

There you go again. In all these years, in all these threads, have you ever been correct even once?

Yes. I'm not proposing devastating hurricanes to hit the USA in increasing intensity in every successive year after 2005. In fact there has not been even one hurricane to make landfall in the US in all that time.

You forgot Ike in 08.

[ShepherdsDog]

I'm eating a wrap with turkey breast, lettuce, scrambled eggs, tomato, onion, mango slices and peppers....just thought this was more interesting than another ride on the merry go ground of climate change